iblog

Rushda: A recent organ donation case has sparked much anger from across the country. The daughter of a woman who was in serious need of a kidney transplant suddenly died, but her organs were distributed to strangers against her wishes despite her mother being in need. The ruling was that preference couldn’t be given to the mother even though the daughter had always wished to help, even expressing interests to be a “living donor” but never completing the formalities.

Laura Ashworth, from Bradford, suddenly died from an asthma attack on 2nd April aged 21. Because she had agreed to be an organ donor whilst she was alive, the decision was made to user her organs for transplant after she died. However, even though Rachel Leake, the mother of Laura, was in desperate need of a kidney she was not allowed to take it because no preferential treatment could be given, and the kidneys went to three strangers on the transplant waiting list. Many people have felt outraged that the state could intervene in such a way when it is so intuitive that donors should be allowed to help their family first. Not only have Laura’s wishes been disrespected but she has left behind her young daughter who is now dependent on her suffering mother.

Mrs Leake is horrified by the decision and has said:

“I believe it should be overturned, I really do. It’s an absolutely ridiculous law. Laura’s helped three people through this, but Laura would have wanted to help me. To help her mum.”

The Human Tissue Authority (HTA) defended its decision to not allow Mrs Leake to take Laura’s kidneys. Adrian McNeil, who is chief executive of the HTA, said:

“The central principle of matching and allocating organs from the deceased is that they are allocated to the person on the UK Transplant waiting list who is most in need and who is the best match with the donor. In line with this central principle, a person cannot choose to whom their organ can be given when they die; nor can their family.”

Even though he says this, he admits that there can be special circumstances to consider, which is why in the future the laws may be revised. It is just unfortunate, however, that such a statement will not help Laura’s mother. What is especially terrible is that not only has this decision cost the mother and daughter but so many people have now lost faith in the donation system and have subsequently removed their name from the register. I cannot blame them: who wants to give something away voluntarily to know their wishes won’t even be respected? Everyone would help their family if they were given the chance, especially their own mother who gave them life in the first place.

Rushda: People have long been in two minds about whether having a cup every day is actually beneficial or not - certainly, having too much caffeine has always been agreed to be risky. Well, lately a number of new studies have shown that the effects of drinking coffee in moderate amounts can have a number of very strong benefits for the brain. Previously, it was shown that that coffee cuts the risk of Alzheimer’s disease, and now new studies have confirmed that coffee cuts down the damages of cholesterol and thereby reduces the risk of diseases such as dementia. Scientists call this “best evidence yet” for claiming that coffee is beneficial.

One of the experiments that was conducted was in rabbits in North Dakota that were fed a fat-rich diet. It was found that those rabbits that were given a caffeine supplement had a much better protected barrier between the brain and the main blood supply than the rabbits which were not. Similarly in humans, scientists say that there is a “blood brain barrier” which protects the brain from harmful chemicals carried in the blood. This barrier is said to become “leaky” if one consumes high levels of cholesterol, which contributes to the risk of mental diseases such as Alzheimer’s. Coffee strengthens this barrier, which means there is less potential for harmful chemicals to enter the brain.

As Dr Jonathan Geiger, who led the study explains:

“Caffeine appears to block several of the disruptive effects of cholesterol that make the blood-brain barrier leaky,” said Dr Jonathan Geiger, who led the study. High levels of cholesterol are a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease, perhaps by compromising the protective nature of the blood brain barrier. Caffeine is a safe and readily available drug and its ability to stabilise the blood brain barrier means it could have an important part to play in therapies against neurological disorders.”

This is very promising news, especially for those who are currently researching into cures for Alzheimer’s disease. A spokesperson for the Alzheimer’s Disease Society says:

“This is the best evidence yet that caffeine equivalent to one cup of coffee a day can help protect the brain against cholesterol. In addition to its effect on the vascular system, elevated cholesterol levels also cause problems with the blood brain barrier. This barrier, which protects the brain from toxins and infections, is less efficient prior to brain damage caused by Alzheimer’s disease or strokes.”

Coffee-lovers will be pleased that their favourite drink will also be protecting their brains for years to come.

Thomas King:

A new ‘smart drug’ for treating rheumatoid arthritis has received extremely positive results in two separate trials published this week in The Lancet.

Medical schools at the University of Vienna and the University of Yokohama have studied rheumatoid arthritis sufferers over a wide age range being treated with tocilizumab, a drug developed by pharmaceutical giants Roche and Chugai. Both studies found that the treatment could massively reduce the severity of the symptoms which the patients had to suffer and could do so with fewer side effects than common treatments

Rheumatoid arthritis is an autoimmune disorder which affects over 450,000 people in the UK and is far more common in women than men. The disease creates painful swellings in the joints and can even destroy the cartilage padding them, making the pain even worse. It can also lead to tiredness and other symptoms such as rashes and can increase the risk of heart disease.

These symptoms are caused by the immune system mistakenly identifying cells of the sufferer’s own body as disease microbes. It attacks these cells by flooding them with white blood cells called T-lymphocytes

The disease is usually treated with drugs called disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), the most common of which is called methotrexate. These drugs work by blocking the enzyme pathways needed to allow the T-lymphocytes to form and to attach to the sufferer’s cells. The major disadvantage of these treatments is that they are all extremely toxic and cannot be taken for a prolonged period of time, making them unsuitable for treating chronic sufferers.

Tocilizumab works by attacking the problem from a different angle. It blocks the synthesis of a protein called interleukin-6 which is found in high concentrations in severely inflamed joints and, by doing so, claims to reduce the severity of the condition. It is also far less toxic as it blocks a less crucial pathway.

The first study, by the University of Vienna, focussed on adult sufferers and says that the new drug, based on the structure of a human antibody, “significantly and rapidly improves the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis”.

In this trial, the drug was given to 623 patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis. A successful outcome for this study was defined as a 20% improvement in symptoms (under American College of Rheumatology criteria)

Of the 623 patients, 205 were given 8mg of tocilizumab per kg of body weight, 214 patients received 4mg per kg of body weight and 204 received a placebo. The drugs and placebo were given intravenously every four weeks, along with methotrexate, at doses of 10-25mg per week.

After 24 weeks, 59% of patients receiving the 8mg dose had shown a 20% decrease in symptoms. In those receiving 4mg, 48% recorded a response, compared with 26% in the placebo group. This, the study says, proves that tocilizumab could be “an effective agent for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis.”

The second study, by the University of Yokohama, focussed on juvenile arthritis sufferers aged 2-19. It found an improvement in symptoms in 91% of the patients treated and hails tocilizumab as “a step forward in the control of a disease that has previously proved to be difficult to manage”.

Both trials found adverse effects, such as gastric infections, in some subjects but, compared to the extreme side effects which traditional arthritis treatments can have, these were comparatively minor. Therefore, tocilizamub seems to represent a significant advance in the treatment of this painful and crippling disease.

Rushda: New legislations regarding IVF treatment have recently made it impossible for parents to choose an embryo with a genetic defect when a healthy one is available. Most people would regard this as an important and beneficial move but a recent case has sparked much controversy over the issue. A set of deaf parents, who see deafness as a cultural phenomenon rather than a true disability, want to have a deaf child despite being able to have a hearing child instead.

This is one of the few cases where the parents have preferred their child to have a disability than to not, and it has sparked outrage from both sides. Tomato Lichy and his partner, who already “thankfully” have a deaf child, argue that they will be able to connect better with their new child if it cannot hear - deafness, they say, comes with many beautiful cultural features such as deaf in-jokes and deaf-language. They argue that to refuse their right to have a deaf child would be discrimination, effectively saying that deaf people cannot have worthwhile lives. As Lichy says:

“The core issue is that the government is saying deaf people are not equal to hearing people. Despite the fact that over time we have seen more and more rights for disabled people they are now seeking to establish a legal principle that deaf people are inferior - and there may be more laws once this gap opens.”

For Lichy and his partner, the preference is so great that they would regard a hearing child as a disabled one. However, many have retaliated by saying that deliberately choosing a child who will face problems in life is morally condemnable. It cannot be discrimination because the argument is not that deaf children don’t have worthy lives but that hearing children have a higher potential for a better life. As chief executive Jackie Ballard of The Royal National Institute for Deaf People explains:

“Deafness is a disability and we have spent a long time campaigning to improve the lives of people who live with it. But it is certainly not a slight to the deaf to say it is better to bring a child who will face the least difficulty into the world, when there is a choice to be made.”

Personally, I agree and I think that to call hearing ability a disability is not only absurd but insulting to the majority of deaf people who do feel that their lack of hearing is a deficiency. Thankfully the Royal National Institute for Deaf People are also against Lichy’s plans. Why deliberately cause damage to a child without even giving it a chance of hearing? (no hearing child would feel “worse off”) The parents may feel that deafness has given them comparable substitutes, but how would they even know how good hearing is? At any rate, the argument is a slippery slope. What’s to stop parents who can’t walk now asking for a limbless child?

Thomas King: Sales of Morrissey albums will soar, the poetry of Leonard Cohen will top the bestsellers lists, black will become (if possible) more fashionable. No, it’s not the Eighties coming back, it’s a new piece of research saying that, if you’re depressed, you may need to live with it and not rely on pills to feel better because anti-depressants may not really work.

The study, published yesterday in the journal PLoS Medicine and led by an academic from the University of Hull, took data from 35 clinical trials, covering the four most-prescribed anti-depressants in the US. The results from these studies were pooled and examined to see if, overall, there was any significant effect of anti-depressant.

The research found that, overall, there was a improvement in mood when taking an anti-depressant. But it also found that an almost equal improvement in mood was seen when taking a sugar-pill that the subject was told was an anti-depressant. In fact, in two of the trials, patients reported feeling happier when taking the sugar-pill than they did when taking the actual drug.

Interestingly, the trial found that the more depressed an individual was to begin with, the greater the benefit that they seemed to get from the drug. Severely depressed individuals were the group who reported the biggest difference in improvement of mood when taking the real drug and when taking the sugar pill.

The study’s authors say that this is a false result, “attributable to a decrease in responsiveness to placebo, rather than an increase in responsiveness to medication.” More depressed people were no more likely to report an increase in mood with the anti-depressant, they were just less likely to report an improvement with the placebo.

If these drugs have no real effect, then why are they still prescribed? In the year 2006/2007 there were over 31 million prescriptions for anti-depressants in the UK. Would so many people be taking them if they didn’t make them feel better?

According to the study’s authors, any beneficial effects you might feel come down to a ‘placebo effect’. We’ve probably all heard stories of people getting drunk on water because they believe it’s vodka. This, in essence, is a ‘placebo effect’; something affects you a certain way because you believe it should. Anti-depressants make you happier because you expect to be happier. After all, you’re taking anti-depressants.

So, should this finding be seen as a hammer-blow to depressives, one less way to scare away the black dog?

No. If anything it should be seen as a hopeful message as it shows just how easily depression can be relieved if you’re in the right frame of mind. They say “Let a smile be your umbrella” but an upbeat attitude could protect you from more than just rain.

Kayleigh: Scientists have found that living a healthy life can increase an individuals life span by up to 14 years.

Doing frequent exercise, not smoking, drinking in moderation and eating more fruit and vegetables were the key factor in increasing a person’s life, a study by the University of Cambridge and the Medical Research Council based in Norfolk found.

The Public Library of Science Medicine study involved research on 20,000 people over a time span of ten years.

Participants, who were between the age of 45 and 79, were given a point for each of the four healthy behaviours, which were not smoking, exercising, drinking no more than than 15 units of alcohol per week, (which is less than five large glasses of wine) and eating five servings of fruit and vegetables a day.

The results showed that the participants who were aged between 45 and 79, and who followed all four rules were more likely to have lived longer than those who didn’t. In fact of those that didn’t, some died. The results also showed that smokers were 77% more likely to have died during the ten year period.

Professor Kay-Tee Khaw a gerontologist at Cambridge University who led the study said: “The results strongly suggest that these four achievable lifestyle changes could have a marked improvement on the health of middle-aged and older people, which is particularly important given the ageing population in the UK and other European countries.”

Health organisations welcomed the study and encourage people to take note of the findings. Judy O’Sullivan, who works at the British Heart Foundation said: “This is good news and shows that by living a healthy life, people can reduce their risk of dying from heart and circulatory disease.

“By not smoking, drinking alcohol in moderation, taking regular physical activity and eating a diet rich in fruit and vegetables, people can improve their chances of living longer.”

I am not a smoker, but I do tend to abuse alcohol on weekends and I should eat more fruit and vegetables, and this research has encouraged me to look after my body more. What better time to start than the New Year- this should help you keep your resolutions!

Rushda: Everyone knows that leading a healthy lifestyle by controlling your diet and exercise is the most important thing for ensuring a long life, but now leading scientists have finally confirmed how true this is, even putting a figure to the guidance by saying that anyone who follows the guidelines will on average increase their lifespan by 14 years.

The recommendations are as follows:

1. Take regular exercise
2. Eat plenty of fruit and vegetables daily
3. Drink alcohol only in moderation
4. Don’t smoke

According to experts from University of Cambridge and the Medical Research Council, anyone who follows the four simple things above will automatically boost their lifespan for an average of fourteen years. Not only this but they will encounter fewer health problems throughout their life too. The research involved in producing these results involved analysing the habits of over 20,000 people over a decade where it was found that people who failed on all four of the criteria had more health problems and were in times four times more likely to die during that period than those who succeeded. Furthermore, what is especially encouraging is that it doesn’t even matter if you are poor or overweight, fulfilling the above will still help you just as much.

Professor Kay-Tee Khaw, who led the research says:

“We’ve know that individually, measures such as not smoking and exercising can have an impact upon longevity, but this is the first time we have looked at them altogether. And we also found that social class and BMI - body mass index - really did not have a role to play. It means a large proportion of the population really could feel health benefits through moderate changes.”

This is great news and should encourage everyone to take the simple steps highlighted in order to have longer, healthier, and no doubt happier lives.

Rushda: Alternative medicines and treatments such as aromatherapy and homeopathy will start to be regulated this year by the government for the first time. Not only have alternative treatments always been regarded with some suspicion before for how well they work, but their very dubious nature has allowed many practitioners to take advantage of the fact that there are no rules and they have been able to market whatever they like to gullible clients. Thus a new organisation called the Natural Healthcare Council, backed by the Prince of Wales, will make sure that certain minimum standards are met in both the medicines offered and the abilities and professionalism of the practitioners.

Even though some alternative remedies are regarded as bogus by many, millions of people in the UK regularly use them. Indeed, it is estimated that £130 million a year is spent on complementary medicines with the figure sharply increasing by the year. The scheme will cover all complementary treatments such as “aromatherapy, reflexology, massage, nutrition, shiatzu, reiki, naturopathy, yoga, homoeopathy, cranial osteopathy and the Alexander and Bowen techniques”. Surprisingly studies have also shown that over two thirds of people in Britain believe that such remedies are valuable, many even claiming that they are the same or even better than conventional treatments.

It is therefore worrying that currently, unlike conventional medical practitioners, anyone can actually set themselves up as a reiki or reflexology professional and they would not be breaking any laws, leading much of the public into thinking that they are actually qualified. Now, the public will hopefully be able to ascertain the quality of different practices by checking if they conform to the government standard. Though joining the scheme is voluntary, businesses will lose out if they fail to give customers any evidence of their professionalism.

As Ian Cambray-Smith, of the scheme, says:

“Although it is a voluntary scheme, we believe that in dealing with misconduct by therapists it will be almost as robust as statutory regulation, and as tough as we can make it. Suspension from the register will be the ultimate sanction. It will be good for practitioners, good for patients, and even good for the NHS. If there is a complaint, the council will convene a board of lay people, plus two practitioners, to review the case. If it is proven, a second board will determine what disciplinary procedures to take.”

Personally I am very sceptical about any alternative treatments, as they are probably harmful at worst and placebos at best. Whatever your views on them though, it is clear that there will be a lot of hoaxes amongst the genuine treatments. Therefore any proper regulation on the part of the government can only be a good thing.

Virgil: We’ll all have come across flu at some point in our lives. Less commonly referred to as influenza, it is a dangerous virus that spreads during winter and causes as many as 1,000,000 deaths every year (4,000 in the UK). To combat this, most people are strongly encouraged to get an annual flu vaccination, and this demand sets drug companies into a manufacturing rush each winter. However, the problem for such companies is not so much the quantity as the quality of the drug; because the virus mutates over time, it needs to be constantly altered to fit the particular strain that is circulating.

It is for this same reason that people have to have the jab again and again to maintain immunity. This is of course expensive, as well as tedious for patients, resulting in many people simply not getting the jab at all. However a new vaccine produced by drug company Acambis hopes to be able to tackle all possible mutations of the most common form of the virus, Influenza A. The drug, appropriately named ACAM-FLU-A, works by targetting a particular protein named M2 that is present in all strains of flu. Previous drugs targetting different proteins showing up on only some of the strains.

In a limited human trial, 9 out of 10 patients developed lifelong immunity to flu, however Acambis scientists are now working to perfect the drug before larger human trials. Dr Michael Watson is very confident:

“As a universal vaccine, ACAM-FLU-A can potentially overcome many of the drawbacks of existing influenza vaccines. It can be manufactured at any time of the year, and could be stockpiled in advance of a pandemic or potentially used routinely to ensure population protection against future pandemics.”

It is the notion of a pandemic that scares most experts. Analysts claim that a pandemic of the human form of bird flu across the world is “inevitable”, and that when this arrives it could kill as many as 50,000,000 people. At this sort of scale, the “winter-only” drugs currently in use would be much less effective in stopping the virus, which would mutate as it moves around. But will the new lifelong jab prevent this kind of catastophe? Whilst it has the potential to immunise most of us to most types of flu we are likely to encounter, Professor Ian Jones, a virologist at the University of Reading, states that “larger trials and tests on a wider range of viruses will be needed before the full potential for pandemic protection can be assured.”

Rushda: A new study has found that despite there being many benefits of low-energy lightbulbs in helping the environment, they can in fact be harmful to those with skin conditions by causing painful rashes to develop or worsen. Thousands of people are at risk if they have photosensitive skin problems.

Fluorescent bulbs, which use about a quarter of the energy of conventional bulbs, have long been marketed by the light industry as one of the major things we should all be switching to in order to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Furthermore, they are part of the government aim which is to stop the sale of ordinary bulbs by 2011 in order to meet its environment aims. This is all particularly worrying as there are more and more low-energy bulbs coming into use in the home and also in public places.

Many experts including British Association of Dermatologists has asked that the switch shouldn’t be made too hastily and people with such skin conditions must be able to continue to use ordinary bulbs and insist that their workplaces use them under the Disability Discrimination Act. After all, the problem is a serious one and it is estimated that 100,000 people in the UK with the condition will be affected in some way. However, representatives from the lighting industry say that there should be no need to carry on using conventional bulbs as they will now develop alternatives to fluorescent bulbs.

Dr Colin Holden, President of the British Association of Dermatologists, said:

“It is important that patients with photosensitive skin eruptions are allowed to use lights that don’t exacerbate their condition. It is essential that such patients are able to protect themselves from specific wavelengths of light emitted by fluorescent bulbs, especially as they are often trapped indoors because they can’t venture out in natural sunlight.”

For those who have long insisted that low energy bulbs are the ultimate way forward, this new piece of news puts them in a problematic position, especially considering that only recently it was announced that low-energy bulbs are bad in other ways, including causing migraines. It seems that as a nation we have become obsessed with saving the environment - at the expense of possible harm to ourselves.